Reducing Radiation and Lowering Costs With a Standardized Care Pathway for Nonoperative Thoracolumbar Fractures

Reducing costs and improving patient recovery through a nurse-driven centralized spinal orthoses program on a post-surgical unit: A quality improvement initiative

Background

An external vendor providing off-the-shelf spinal orthoses to inpatients created significant costs and barriers to quality care for spinal surgery patients. A nursing leadership team initiated a quality improvement project to reduce the cost of providing off-the-shelf spinal orthoses and improve the care provided to spinal patients.

Objective

To develop and evaluate a nursing-led process for providing off-the-shelf orthoses to spinal surgery patients and eliminate high costs.

Design

Quality improvement project evaluated as a retrospective interrupted time-series.

Setting

Post Surgery Inpatient Unit Level II Trauma Center in a United States hospital located in Florida.

Participants

Vendor Program: 134 patients; Centralized Program: 155 patients.

Methods

The nursing leadership team developed a centralized spinal orthoses program where the bedside nurse fitted the patient with a spinal orthosis, eliminating the need for an external orthotist. The study quantifies changes in study metrics by comparing patients identified through chart review who received care in the vendor program to those who received care in the centralized program utilizing nonparametric statistical techniques.

Results

The centralized nursing-led spinal orthosis program allowed the unit to mobilize patients more quickly than patients managed under the vendor program (3.85 hr. [95 % CI: 1.27 to 7.26 hrs] reduction; p = 0.004). The overall length of stay was reduced by 0.78 days ([1.34 - 0.02 days]; p = 0.063) or 18.72 h. While the statistical test did not indicate significance, the 18.72-hour reduction in length of stay represents a potential clinically relevant finding. Evaluating patients that suffered a primary spinal injury and no complications (vendor program: 54 patients; centralized program: 86 patients) showed a similar reduction in time to mobilization (4.5 hr reduction [0.53 to 12.93 hrs]; p = 0.025), but the length of stay reduction increased to 1.02 days [0.12 to 1.97 days], a difference determined to be statistically significant (p = 0.014). Centralizing the process for providing off-the-shelf spinal orthoses reduced the cost of a thoracic-lumbar sacral orthosis by $1,483 and the price of a lumbar-sacral orthosis by $1,327. Throughout the study, the new program reduced the cost of providing spinal orthoses by $175,319.

Conclusions

The results demonstrate that the nursing-led centralized spinal orthosis program positively impacted the quality of care provided to our patients while also reducing the cost of delivering the orthoses.

Tweetable abstract

A nursing-led centralized spinal orthosis program reduces the cost of care while reducing time to mobilization and length of stay.

Thoraco-lumbar-sacral orthoses in older people - A narrative literature review

Fractures in the thoracolumbar region have a bimodal distribution, with an increasing number of older people presenting with acute vertebral fractures after atraumatic or low energy mechanisms of injury. In the absence of neurological compromise and significant vertebral instability, thoracolumbar fractures are often managed conservatively and bracing is widely recommended. However, in older cohorts, bracing is often ill fitting and poorly tolerated with non-compliance leading to prolonged immobilization. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have challenged the motive of bracing, but as evidence quality is low, the role of exploratory analysis has been limited. This descriptive review summarises and examines the current evidence that underpins the use of spinal orthoses, specific to older patients, in an effort to streamline its judicious use in clinical practice and identify scope to direct further research.

Use and Cost of Orthosis in Conservative Treatment of Acute Thoracolumbar Fractures: A Survey of European and North American Experts

STUDY DESIGN

Survey study.

OBJECTIVE

Assess practices and opinions of spine specialists from Europe and North America on orthosis use in adult patients with acute thoracolumbar (TL) fractures. Evaluate cost of the devices.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although orthosis are traditionally used in conservative treatment of TL fractures, recent systematic reviews showed no benefit in patient's outcomes.

METHODS

A search for contact authors with publications on spine fractures from all European and North American countries was performed. An online questionnaire was sent on demographic data, practice setting, mean number of fractures treated, use of orthosis upon choice for conservative treatment, and average orthosis cost. Data was analyzed based in world regions, economic rank of the country, and health expenditure.

RESULTS

We received 130 answers, from 28 European and five North American countries. Most responders had more than 9 years of practice and worked at a public hospital. 6.2% did not prescribe a brace in any patient with acute TL fractures conservatively treated and 11.5% brace all patients. In a scale from 1 to 5, 21 considered that there is no/low benefit (1) and 14 that bracing is essential (5), with a mean of 3.18. Europeans use orthosis less commonly than North Americans (P < 0.05). Orthosis mean cost was $611.4 ± 716.0, significantly higher in North America compared with Europe and in high income, when compared with upper middle income countries (both P < 0.05). Although hospital costs were not evaluated, orthosis is costlier when it involves admission of the patient (P < 0.05). An increase in orthosis cost associated with higher gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and higher health expenditure was found.

CONCLUSION

More than 90% of spine specialists still use orthosis in conservative treatment of adult patients with acute TL fractures. Orthosis cost vary significantly between continents, and it is influenced by the country's economy.Level of Evidence: 4.